Molinism vs. Calvinism!

 

I came across the above interesting debate between William Lane Craig and James White, in which several issues relating to Calvinism are brought up and discussed, including the origin of evil and the freewill of man. It is a long video, and I don’t intend to give it a full commentary. I will only briefly mention some highlights. The mistake that William Lane Craig makes is that he tries to defeat Calvinism with Molinism. Calvinism can only be defeated with scripture. Molinism doesn’t have the real answer to it. The following are the main points brought up in the discussion, that need to be commented on:

1. “Middle Knowledge” and “counterfactuals of freedom” (concepts employed by Molinism to counter Calvinism) are not biblically sound doctrines. They are contradicted by the theology taught in Genesis chapter 20 for example. They therefore cannot be used effectively to counter Calvinism.

2. The question of the origin of moral evil is another principle that is highlighted in the debate and discussed. That is something that I have already brought up and discussed several times in my previous blog posts, therefore there is no need to discuss it again here.

3. The question of why God allows moral evil to exist in the world is another issue that is brought up and discussed, to which William Lane Craig basically gives an incorrect or inaccurate answer. The biblical answer to that question is that mankind must be free to make wrong choices as well as right ones, or to commit evil acts as well as righteous acts, so that they can be “judged according to their works,” and be rewarded or punished accordingly, as taught in the Bible: “… they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29). How could they be “judged” according to their “works” (good or bad) on judgment day (and be rewarded or punished accordingly), if they lacked the freedom and ability to do either?

4. The most important question that is brought up, however, which is the real question that James White is asking is, What is the source and origin of human “freewill”—if he has one? That is the real question that James White is asking—although he is not articulating it very well. His point is a valid one. His point is that if God made man out of nothing, then whatever “freewill” he has (if any) must have been manufactured, and therefore predetermined by its creator; therefore it cannot be totally “independent,” and therefore “free”. If God indeed made man out of nothing, then whatever “freedom” or “freewill” man may possess, cannot be totally independent from its creator—and therefore cannot be truly “free”. That is the point that James White is making—although he is not articulating it very well. That is a valid argument.

The Bible unfortunately does not give the answer to that question. The Bible indeed affirms the absolute moral agency and freewill of man, no doubts about it. But it doesn’t explain or address the philosophical question of where that moral agency and freewill originates from. Hence James White chooses to question its existence, following his Calvinistic model of thinking, rather than merely taking at face-value the biblical affirmation of its existence. But his questioning of it is based on a purely philosophical consideration, rather than a biblical one. If you start with the assumption that God made man out of nothing, then that dilemma becomes real and inevitable—notwithstanding the biblical affirmations of man’s moral agency and freewill. The solution to it unfortunately is not given in the Bible. The Bible does not give the answer to that question. The Bible affirms the absolute freewill and moral agency of man; but it does not explain where it originates from. The answer to that question is to be found only in the modern scriptures of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here is a quote:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

The correct answer to that dilemma is that God did not make man out of “nothing”. The “intelligent” part of man (whatever that is) was not created by God, it has always existed. The precise nature of this “intelligence,” or “light of truth” that was “not created or made, neither indeed can be” has not been revealed, and a lot of incorrect speculation has been made about it among Latter-day Saints in the past. But it does resolve the dilemma of the true origin and source of man’s freedom, or “freewill”. God didn’t make man out of nothing—contrary to the presuppositions of Calvinists and Molinists alike. That is the correct and ultimate answer to James Whites’ question. That video by the way has also been further discussed here, which is interesting to watch. 

No Democracy in the Bible!

 

I found the above video in which John MacArthur argues that there is no “democracy” in the Bible! Here is a quote:

“And we have never had a king in America. We in fact pride ourselves on the American revolution, in which we threw off the rule of a king, a British king by the name of George the Third. We celebrate the fact that we have freed ourselves from kings. That has become much the way of the world. There are few monarchies who have actual kings. There are some symbolic kings, powerless symbolic kings and queens. There are some autocratic military monarchical dictators, where one man rules with power, even over life and death. But an absolute monarchy is very rare; there are only a few. We celebrate the end of monarchies, the end of dictatorships, the end of kings. We hail democracy in our country. We have spent countless dollars, countless lives, countless years trying to turn other countries into democracies like us.

Now I may shock you, the Bible doesn’t advocate democracy; the Bible doesn’t mention democracy; the Bible doesn’t comment on democracy; the Bible doesn’t define democracy. There is no place in all of the Bible where you even find democracy. There is no country revealed in scripture where it existed. It is never affirmed by God. Was Israel a democracy? Never! What was it? It was a theocratic monarchy, and God was king. Yahweh was their king. The covenant God was their king. The Lord Yahweh was Israel’s king forever. There is only one God in the universe, and he in his mercy and grace gave himself to a people, the Jews, to be their king. What an astonishing privilege, right?”

He is wrong about a lot of that, like he is about many other aspects of his Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. There is indeed democracy in the Bible, and it defines exactly what it is. The Bible identifies a long period of “Judges” in the history of ancient Israel during which there was “no king” in the land, and freedom and democracy prevailed:

Judges 17:

6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Judges 18:

1 In those days there was no king in Israel: …

Judges 19:

1 And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel …

Judges 21:

25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Notice, firstly, that four times, in four different chapters, it asserts that there was no king in Israel in those days. Saying it once or twice wasn’t enough, it has to repeat it four times! It doesn’t say, “But wait a minute, they had a king, and his name was God!” “No king” means what it says, “no king,” and that is the definition of democracy. That is what “democracy” is. Secondly, notice that on two of those four occasions, it is qualified further by adding that “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” In other words, there was no ruler, no despot over them telling them what to do, or how to live their lives. They were free to do as they pleased, or to live their lives as they wanted. They did not have a dictator ruling over them, telling them what to do or how to live. That is the definition of “democracy.” Democracy doesn’t mean that you have to have a “presidential election” every five years. It means that there is “no king,” no dictator, no tyrant telling you what to do, or how to live your life. You are free to “do that which is right in your own eyes”. That is the definition of democracy.

The “Judges” were not despots, they were not tyrants, they were not autocratic rulers. And the succession was not “hereditary,” as in a monarchy. They ruled by the “consent of the governed”. They relied on the willing cooperation of the people to get what they wanted. If the people didn’t want to follow, obey, or cooperate with them, they couldn’t do it. If they needed to fight a war for example, they relied on the willing cooperation of the people to raise an army to go and fight. They had no forced military conscription to raise an army to fight. They ruled by the genuine consent of the people. If the people didn’t want to follow or obey them, they had no power to force them to. That is the meaning of democracy. When they asked Samuel to appoint a “king” over them for example, he had no choice but to give them what they wanted—even though he didn’t think that it was a good idea, and told them so.

These are all characteristics of a genuine democracy, or a free democratic society. It was a democracy in the full sense of the term. The fact that the people themselves chose to throw it away afterwards, and were able to do so, is itself evidence of that. You can’t throw off dictatorship except through violence, insurrection, and revolution. But democracy, once gained, can easily be lost, or thrown away at will, by making the wrong choices and decisions. The Americans had to fight a war in order to gain their democracy and freedom. It is called the War of Independence. But they don’t need to fight any wars in order to lose it. All they need to do is to follow the advice of people like John MacArthur, and it is done.

It is a long sermon, and the rest of it contains many more theological, exegetical, and hermeneutical errors which would be too tedious to attempt to unravel and unpack. I will just briefly quote a few additional scriptures that clarify the theology on the subject. The first is a quote from Deuteronomy (written by Moses from God, before the period of the “Judges” began), indicating that God is not altogether against their having a “king,” provided that he is a righteous king who obeys God, and rules over the people in righteousness:

Deuteronomy 17:

14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

So God was not opposed to their having a king, provided that he was chosen by God, and he was a righteous king, and kept the Commandments of God. The next set of scriptures indicate that God is indeed the “king” of the whole earth, not just of Israel. He is the king and ruler of all nations of the world, whether they realize it or not, or know about it or not. The only difference was that the Israelites had good reasons to know about it, whereas other nations didn’t:

Ezra 1:

2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Psalm 47:

7 For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.

Isaiah 37:

16 O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.

Jeremiah 10:

10 But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

So the Israelites were not an “exception” in having God as their king. All nations have God as their king. What set the Israelites apart was that they were exceptionally aware of this phenomenon, or had good reasons to be, whereas other nations weren’t.

One last point remains to be mentioned in relation to his sermon. At the very beginning, in the initial trailer to his sermon, he has some mean and nasty things to say about Muslims and Islam:

“Don’t tell me you want to invite more Muslims in, who represent a religion from hell, and then put your hand on the throne of God.”

LOL! After getting his Bible upside-down, and his theology all twisted and wrong way round, getting his Islam and Muslims all twisted and wrong was not unexpected. Any religion that promotes the worship of the one true God, and adherence to the biblical standards of morality, goodness, virtue, and righteous living; justice, judgment, and truth etc. as Islam does, is going to be a force for good in the world, as Islam has been. This video gives a tiny glimpse of that:

I found that video by just Googling for “achievements of Islam”. There are lots more such information to be found. A religion that feels the need to constantly berate, disparage, and denigrate other faith traditions in order to promote itself, or ensure its own survival, has lost credibility, and is not worth wasting time with. I am glad I am in a Church that doesn’t feel the need to constantly berate, disparage, and denigrate other faith traditions, including Islam. See here and here for more info.

Interpreting the Book of Hosea!

 

I found the above interesting video by Alisa Childers in which she discusses the merits and demerits of watching a certain movie based on the story of Old Testament prophet Hosea, in which God commands him to marry a prostitute (Hosea 1:2–3; 3:1–3), to symbolically represent the relationship of Jehovah to Israel. My aim here is not to comment on the merits or demerits of the movie, or her opinion of it; but to comment exclusively on her understanding of the book of Hosea. At around 3:28 minutes into the video she says the following:

“The book of Hosea is about this prophet that God commands to marry an immoral woman ⋯ there is a little bit of debate about this, if she was a prostitute to begin with, and then he was supposed to marry a prostitute; or if she would then, if she wasn’t a prostitute to start with, but then she would cheat on him.”

There is no reason for “debate” about that. The text makes it clear that she was a prostitute to begin with. Then she continues:

“But either way you interpret it, the point is that after they were married, she would be committing adultery on him over and over again; ⋯”

There is no such “assumption” in the text either. The assumption is that she remained faithful to him after their marriage. In Hosea 3:3, he makes an agreement with her that he would remain faithful to her, and she to him; and the assumption is that she agrees, and remains faithful. His marriage to her was simply a symbolic gesture to the house of Israel. Such symbolic gestures are found in other places in the prophets (e.g. Isaiah 8:3–4; 20:1–3). She continues:

“⋯ and so in the story after some time, they have three children. She abandons him, she cheats on him. She leaves him for other lovers, and eventually falls into some kind of destitution, possibly even some type of slavery; and then again, at God’s direction, Hosea goes and finds her, redeems her, and brings her home.”

Where does it say any of that? No such thing is found anywhere in the book of Hosea. I don’t think she has even read the book of Hosea. She is going by something that somebody else must have told her about it. She doesn’t know what she is talking about. She continues:

“And so the question is, what is the larger point of the book of Hosea? I want to read to you from Hosea from the beginning, so that we will know what is the book of Hosea about. So starting in verse 2, it says this: ‘When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take yourself a wife of whoredom (this is the ESV I am reading from) And have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord. So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.’ So the larger sign, the larger thing we are supposed to get out of this is that the reason God is telling Hosea to go marry a woman who is going to cheat on him over and over again, is to show how he feels about Israel’s willful, continual unrepentant rebellion against him.”

Where does it say that she is going to “cheat on him over and over again?” Nothing of the kind is taught anywhere in the book of Hosea. He married a prostitute at the commandment of the Lord as a symbolic gesture to Israel, in representation of the the relationship of Jehovah with them. The Israelites knew that he had married a prostitute for that purpose, and were therefore able to make the right inferences from it. She didn’t have to “cheat on him over and over again” in order to confirm that representation. And there is nothing in the text that implies that that is what she did.

Is Calvinism Good for the Church?

A Video with a strange title! After reading the title, I didn’t bother to watch! There was no need to watch the video after reading the title. The answer is too obvious from the title.

Calvinism is a damnable heresy which is bad for everything and everybody, and no good to anything or anybody. It deprives mankind of all moral agency, responsibility, and freewill (contrary to the Bible); turns men into robots, and God into a puppet-master pulling all the strings behind the scene; and makes God responsible for all the wickedness and evil in the world—contrary to every teaching of the Bible. It is heretical, unbiblical and false all the way through, from start to finish, and from the beginning to the end. It is a Satanic perversion of the gospel. It is hard to imagine a more damnable heresy that has been invented since Christianity came into existence.

On Canada’s Recent C4 Legislation

 

The Canadian government recently passed “Bill C4,” banning “Conversion Therapy” for LGBTQ folks. I found an article on “Canadian Centre for Christian Charities” which provides this explanation:

“Bill C4, Conversion Therapy Ban Passes the Senate

“On Tuesday, December 7, Bill C-4, which criminalizes conversion therapy, passed the Senate in a single motion. It had already passed the House in a single motion on December 1.

“What is Bill C-4?

“Bill C-4 adds a new offence to the Criminal Code that prohibits conversion therapy. What is conversion therapy? Bill C-4 defines conversion therapy as a ‘practice, treatment or service designed to’

• Change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual;
• Change a person’s gender identity to cisgender;
• Change a person’s gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at birth;
• Repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour;
• Repress a person’s non-cisgender gender identity; or
• Repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth

“When is it effective?

“Now that Bill C-4 has passed both the House and the Senate, it needs Royal Assent. Royal Assent is approval by the Governor General.

“It will be effective 30 days after it receives Royal Assent.

“Why does it matter?

“Any time the government introduces a new crime, it is important for Canadians to be aware of what behaviour or conduct is prohibited.

“In this case, insofar as Bill C-4 eliminates abusive, involuntary or coercive practices from our communities, that is a good thing.

“The concern—raised by CCCC and many others—has been that the definition of conversion therapy was too broad, and that clarifying amendments were needed in order to avoid capturing legitimate expression and activities. Neither the House nor the Senate amended the Bill.

“Through the course of debate and committee hearings on Bill C–6 (Bill C–4’s predecessor), Ministers and Members of Parliament gave repeated assurances that the bill’s aim was coercive and systematic efforts as well as forced and coordinated efforts, not conversations about sexuality. The Minister also noted that practices, treatments and services designed to achieve objectives such as abstinence or to address sexual addictions are clearly not captured by the definition.

“While clarifying amendments would have been our preferred path forward, we trust that these statements will guide and appropriately restrain the scope of the prohibition.” Link

This has raised a lot of concerns by religious and Christian groups about the religious freedom to teach and preach against LGBTQ practices. They fear that the legislation may have the unintended (or perhaps intended!) consequence of limiting religious freedom and expression. John MacArthur for example has published an open letter (including a short video) on his church’s website encouraging opposition to the bill, which can be seen here. Apparently he has also preached a sermon about it which I was not able to find on the Internet. It would have been preached on the 16^th of January, so perhaps it has not been posted yet. However, this raises another question about John MacArthur’s views on such matters. He had earlier preached a sermon objecting to “religious freedom” altogether. He categorically states that he is opposed to religious freedom:

At 44:26 minutes into the video he says the following (with some gaps in between):

“By the way, I read the other day that one of the Evangelical publicists, whatever that is, said he is happy to let us know that the new administration will uphold religious freedom. Really? The new administration will uphold religious freedom? I don’t even support religious freedom. Religious freedom is what sends people to hell. To say I support religious freedom, is to say I support idolatry. It is to say I support lies, I support hell, I support the kingdom of darkness. You can’t say that. No Christian with half a brain would say, We support religious freedom. We support the truth. … If the new administration supports religious freedom, get ready, persecution will be ramped up; because the more supportive they are of the devil’s lies, the less they are going to tolerate the truth of scripture. We condemn every lie, and we call every person to this. … We are not going to lobby for freedom of religion. What kind of nonsense is that? We are in the world to expose all those lies as lies.”

That is a long video. The relevant clip, however, was extracted and posted on Twitter which can be seen here. Some have said that the clip was taken out of context; but that is not true. That is what he said—although in fairness, he was a bit emotional when he said it, as he was emerging from the lockdowns being imposed on church gatherings at the time due to Covid-19 (especially in California, which he had successfully fought against). But you don’t win against religions persecution by opposing religious freedom. As the proverb goes, “What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.”

If you are going to restrict religious freedom, who determines which religions will be restricted, and which ones will not be? And if you are going to restrict it to all except Christians, who determines which Christian denominations will be restricted, and which ones will not be? And then the Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Hindus, Daoists, Shintōs, Sikhs etc. can legitimately claim the same rights for their own religions—and who is going to argue with them about that? There are a lot more of them in the world than there are Christians! Religion cannot be forced. You cannot force your religion on anyone. It is something that can only be freely accepted or rejected. If you expect them to allow Christians the freedom to practise and preach their religion among them (which for the most part they do); they reserve the right to be granted the same privilege among the Christians.

If you are going to restrict religious freedom, and limit it just to Christians, which particular Christian church or denomination are you going to restrict it to? Baptists? Methodists? Presbyterians? Lutherans? Catholics? Pentecostals? Charismatics? Eastern Orthodox? etc.? Pretty soon you are going to end up where the Puritans were in the UK, where they faced religious persecution at home by their government, which favored one particular Christian denomination above the rest (which opposed them) before they fled to America to escape that persecution. Most of the early migrants to America were people who were escaping religious persecution at home in Europe, at the hands of their own governments, which favored and supported one particular religious group, faction, or denomination above the rest. That is what happens when you start restricting religious freedom, which is what John MacArthur is advocating in that sermon.

The reason why religious freedom is enshrined in US Constitution is because of the experience of religious persecution at home in Europe, where the early American immigrants had come from. It was precisely the existence of this bill of rights* in the American Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, that protected John MacArthur from encroachment by the California State which wanted to limit his religious freedom. Now he is expressing opposition to the very law that gave him protection. That is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on, or biting the hand that fed you. It’s crazy.

If you are going to restrict religious freedom, what is the agent which is going to restrict it? You can’t restrict religious freedom without an agent which has the power and authority to enforce it, and that agent will have to be the government. So John MacArthur wants the Government to tell people what religion they are allowed to have, and what religion they are not! If so, what makes him so sure that the government is going to pick his religion instead of a different one?

Religious freedom is the mother of all freedoms. If you start limiting religious freedom, you start on the road to limiting every other kind of freedom. So John MacArthur wants to undo more than two centuries of American freedom, which has made America the greatest country on earth. I don’t think he really knows what he is talking about.

_____________

*Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

_____________________

P. S.

John MacArthur’s sermon supportive of the Canadian pastors, and in support of biblical sexual morality can now be seen here. Since he posted his appeal on his Church’s website, lots of other pastors and preachers have also responded to his call to speak and preach against Canada’s “Bill C4” legislation, and in support of sexual morality which is also a good thing, and which can be seen on the Internet, of which the following are a few examples:

https://youtu.be/EkSQ4bhhfUw https://youtu.be/7SnrgU-yDa0 https://youtu.be/bjjo_fuZhIQ

A Google search will produce more interesting results. So John MacArthur gets credit for that, but not for his unwise comments in opposition to religious freedom.